For forty years I live in an environment where one witnesses Indigenous behaviour day in day out so it was easy for me to vote. I spoke to a cousin in Mont Albert yesterday & the subject came up. Cuz undecided as not lived in Indigenous environment or had any contact with them. Albo just in Alice but before he got there Elders rounded up the trouble makers & packed them all off to out of town settlements. Now they would be back in town. Not just happening in Alice, Halls Creek, Carnarvon, Broome etc etc.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous Voice Yes or No?
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
While I can see the point of view that this is divisive, and it separates Australians into differing groups, it flies in the face of reality.
Reality is that the indigenous peoples of Australia were dispossessed, we nicked their land and we all benefit from the dispossession every day we live here.
As Keating said, we brought the booze, we brought the disease.
But, even more than this, indigenous Australians have, in theory, been equal to all other Australians legally since the 1967 referendum. In practice we all know that they are not treated equally, very far from it. Reality is we are not all treated equally, go and talk to a black fella and get them to describe some of the treatment they get, it is the sort of treatment I never get, because I am a white fella. Racism is all about exerting power on the basis of race, which is why reverse racism is impossible - you do not get power exerted against you on the basis of being part of the race in power.
I also understand the position where people say a voice is not enough, that a treaty is necessary. I would very much like to see a treaty, but this is what is on offer and it should only be seen as a start. We took this land, we need to make peace with those we stole it from. The reality of sovereignity being held by the settler regime is undeniable but that does not mean we shouldn't make redress for past wrongs which we benefit from. In any case, who is to draft the treaty? Well, the voice to parliament could be a good place for the indigenous side to thrash out their position in any negotiations.
As for the argument that there is not enough detail, anyone asking that question is clearly ignorant of the role of the constitution. The constitution does not have detail, and this is deliberate. There is no mention of cabinet in the constitution because you don't want to embed a restrictive structure in the constitution, especially given how hard it is to change in Australia (much harder than elsewhere). Same applies to an indigenous voice to parliament, the principle goes in the constitution so that the voice cannot be abolished, the detail is sorted by the parliament and is able to be changed over time as circumstances change. The constitution exists to set very high level rules, not detail. The detail will be set by the parliament as it is for so many other things. In essence, this referendum question is no less detailed than the 1967 referendum question, but now we have too many divisive agenda-driven pollies who just want to play spoilers. If there was detail all the arguments about how parliament will determine the way the voice works would be drowned out by the bleating about this or that aspect of the voice, and all the arguments about how parliament has total control over the detail would be ignored in an attempt to scare people.
I will be voting yes.
I see this as a start, it needs to be followed by a treaty, truth and reconciliation and redress.
DS
Reality is that the indigenous peoples of Australia were dispossessed, we nicked their land and we all benefit from the dispossession every day we live here.
As Keating said, we brought the booze, we brought the disease.
But, even more than this, indigenous Australians have, in theory, been equal to all other Australians legally since the 1967 referendum. In practice we all know that they are not treated equally, very far from it. Reality is we are not all treated equally, go and talk to a black fella and get them to describe some of the treatment they get, it is the sort of treatment I never get, because I am a white fella. Racism is all about exerting power on the basis of race, which is why reverse racism is impossible - you do not get power exerted against you on the basis of being part of the race in power.
I also understand the position where people say a voice is not enough, that a treaty is necessary. I would very much like to see a treaty, but this is what is on offer and it should only be seen as a start. We took this land, we need to make peace with those we stole it from. The reality of sovereignity being held by the settler regime is undeniable but that does not mean we shouldn't make redress for past wrongs which we benefit from. In any case, who is to draft the treaty? Well, the voice to parliament could be a good place for the indigenous side to thrash out their position in any negotiations.
As for the argument that there is not enough detail, anyone asking that question is clearly ignorant of the role of the constitution. The constitution does not have detail, and this is deliberate. There is no mention of cabinet in the constitution because you don't want to embed a restrictive structure in the constitution, especially given how hard it is to change in Australia (much harder than elsewhere). Same applies to an indigenous voice to parliament, the principle goes in the constitution so that the voice cannot be abolished, the detail is sorted by the parliament and is able to be changed over time as circumstances change. The constitution exists to set very high level rules, not detail. The detail will be set by the parliament as it is for so many other things. In essence, this referendum question is no less detailed than the 1967 referendum question, but now we have too many divisive agenda-driven pollies who just want to play spoilers. If there was detail all the arguments about how parliament will determine the way the voice works would be drowned out by the bleating about this or that aspect of the voice, and all the arguments about how parliament has total control over the detail would be ignored in an attempt to scare people.
I will be voting yes.
I see this as a start, it needs to be followed by a treaty, truth and reconciliation and redress.
DS
This is a nonsense statement. There are no 'elders' in Alice with the power or the want to pack 'trouble makers' to out of town settlements. And which settlements are you talking about?
Im no arbiter of truth, nor of footy forums,
But id remind you of the TErms of Reference of this thread,
At this time.
Its a data collection exercise aiming for 100, as unbiased as possible.
If youlle indulge and bare with me for a day or two,
Vote quietly.
After 100 votes,
Well dissect and debate.
Much love to my righteous tiger family of brave aussie heroes
But id remind you of the TErms of Reference of this thread,
At this time.
Its a data collection exercise aiming for 100, as unbiased as possible.
If youlle indulge and bare with me for a day or two,
Vote quietly.
After 100 votes,
Well dissect and debate.
Much love to my righteous tiger family of brave aussie heroes
I voted probably No. I don't think we should be putting anything into our constitution that puts any one group in our population above others. We should be removing divisive barriers not adding them. Everyone should have an equal voice to parliament. However once the proposed question comes out I reserve the right to change my mind.
For all Fellas Stackey. We're all humans. You know little about any of us, our families or background nor what motivates us.
Please don't start labelling without any understanding.
Whatever comes of this I pray the outcome will go beyond politics and actually help the First Nations folk in real terms and in a big way. And I also pray those representing them actually are speaking on behalf of the majority and are informed. Time will tell.
One thing that seems positive is it seems the majority of non indigenous (I could be wrong) legitimately want better for the indigenous. Perhaps thats a shift on yesteryear
One thing that seems positive is it seems the majority of non indigenous (I could be wrong) legitimately want better for the indigenous. Perhaps thats a shift on yesteryear
I've voted. I'm also going to guess your hypothesis: - Excessive targeted media spending, propaganda and radicalism activities from the no team in QLD, NSW & SA to avoid a double majority being achieved.
Thanks 78.
Not my hypothesis.
Ill share at 100
Votes , in the morning by the
Looks
Thanks to a
Great response by PRE
I've clipped this but honestly in all the years I've been on here spooker, this is the goldest post I've ever read. Bravo mate.
hypothesis supported
hypothesis: the significant majority of australians have made up their mind on The Voice referendum with a minumum 60% Yes vote.
Most PRE'ers polled have made up their minds, as i expected because its a bit of a no brainer.
A bit like 1967 aboriginal citizenship which got anincredibly anomolous 90% YES
This data suggest a 70% YES vote,
And that the divisive, vested, unsophisticated, unbearable commentary over the next 6 months will only influence the YES margin in the range 60-85%
A sufficient majority of Australians understand that The Voice was born from The Uluru Statement of The Heart, and that that was an exhaustive, inclusive, collaborative, consensus process, conceived and completed by indigenous Australia.
Fortunately, we're in good hands with Albonese on this one; hes one of the few who understands and his message reflects, that in a referendum it doesnt matter what he thinks. its our decision. He rightly assumes the role of facilitator. If you listen carefully, hes speaking in truths. Its understandable that there are ears that are out of practice in receiving such messaging.
And we'll get it right.
Thanks for voting and discussing in a civilised manner - by the very definition of a referendum, your opinion matters, unless it doesnt.
Mods @Mr T. , thanks for indulging my reassuring research, please move to politics board
hypothesis: the significant majority of australians have made up their mind on The Voice referendum with a minumum 60% Yes vote.
Most PRE'ers polled have made up their minds, as i expected because its a bit of a no brainer.
A bit like 1967 aboriginal citizenship which got anincredibly anomolous 90% YES
This data suggest a 70% YES vote,
And that the divisive, vested, unsophisticated, unbearable commentary over the next 6 months will only influence the YES margin in the range 60-85%
A sufficient majority of Australians understand that The Voice was born from The Uluru Statement of The Heart, and that that was an exhaustive, inclusive, collaborative, consensus process, conceived and completed by indigenous Australia.
Fortunately, we're in good hands with Albonese on this one; hes one of the few who understands and his message reflects, that in a referendum it doesnt matter what he thinks. its our decision. He rightly assumes the role of facilitator. If you listen carefully, hes speaking in truths. Its understandable that there are ears that are out of practice in receiving such messaging.
And we'll get it right.
Thanks for voting and discussing in a civilised manner - by the very definition of a referendum, your opinion matters, unless it doesnt.
Mods @Mr T. , thanks for indulging my reassuring research, please move to politics board
Last edited:
70% Yes today. I reckon it would have been higher if not for the oppositions attempt to squash this referendum without ever having to say "No". Media are giving the No voice equal if not larger voice than the Yes, even twisting polls to make it seems like Yes is losing.
The fear I have is that the 70% today will be 65% next week and 60% the week after. I can see us *smile* up this referendum like we *smile* up the Australian Republic referendum and it will be a very sad day for Australia.
The fear I have is that the 70% today will be 65% next week and 60% the week after. I can see us *smile* up this referendum like we *smile* up the Australian Republic referendum and it will be a very sad day for Australia.
I think you can relax and have faith mate,
The data suggests peoples minds are made up.
I certainly wont be persuaded by peter dutton or lydia thorpe.
Theyre fighting over an inconsequential 25%
albonese is moderately and fairly leading a moderate and fair majority of Australians to a better place
PRE doesnt get anything wrong
We have said sorry
We put the Voice into action
Then set up a treaty
How does all this improve the lives of the individuals? That is my question. Will vote yes to anything that actually shows me that aborigines will stop dying on average 20 years earlier than other Australians, stop being the bulk of prison inmates, stop the domestic violence.
Show me where the aboriginal kids being born this year will have the same safe home, education, and health chances as most other Australian kids
I know it is a complex issue. Just seems we are fixing things that won't improve things on the ground
We put the Voice into action
Then set up a treaty
How does all this improve the lives of the individuals? That is my question. Will vote yes to anything that actually shows me that aborigines will stop dying on average 20 years earlier than other Australians, stop being the bulk of prison inmates, stop the domestic violence.
Show me where the aboriginal kids being born this year will have the same safe home, education, and health chances as most other Australian kids
I know it is a complex issue. Just seems we are fixing things that won't improve things on the ground
The very purpose of the Voice is to give Aboriginal people input into policies that affect them.
